Wiki

Tickets

Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

If a motorist is cited by a law enforcement officer, she has the right to "due process".

She can go to court and request a trial.

The law enforcement officer has to appear and testify under oath as to why the motorist was cited.

The motorist can cross examine the officer, she can't cross examine an inanimate object, the camera.

That fact alone deprives the motorist of "due process".

Redlight cameras are simply revenue generation schemes, and thank God I live in The Republic of Texas.

We had a governor a while back who publicly admitted that the revenue from photo-cops was an important part of her budget. She's no longer governor and there are only a few places left in AZ that still have them.

Car A has green light at intersection of Main and Second. Car B has red light. Car B runs red light and T-bones car A killing front seat passenger (mom) and the 7 month old little girl in the rear seat. Husband/Father that was driving was knocked out and unable to get the plate # of the car/or description of the driver that took off after the accident.

Seems like a sad situation that poor dad can never see justice for his family in the "Great Republic of Texas". due to the lack of red light camera.

Everybody has an issue with red light cameras, speed cameras or any other type of photo-cop.

We had a governor a while back who publicly admitted that the revenue from photo-cops was an important part of her budget. She's no longer governor and there are only a few places left in AZ that still have them.

Click to expand...

My wife just asked me the same question, "How do redlight cameras deprive you of your property?

I explained this to her again:

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

We discussed this when slippery, local politicians rolled out this cozy, little scam.

She understands this fully now, as well as what the due process means, along with what the 14th Amendment required states to do, not just to eliminate the stench of slavery.

Yet, states daily are allowed to give shelter to scofflaws that enter our country illegally.

The same applies to rogue states who allege marijuana is legal just to reap tax windfalls.

Car A has green light at intersection of Main and Second. Car B has red light. Car B runs red light and T-bones car A killing front seat passenger (mom) and the 7 month old little girl in the rear seat. Husband/Father that was driving was knocked out and unable to get the plate # of the car/or description of the driver that took off after the accident.

Seems like a sad situation that poor dad can never see justice for his family in the "Great Republic of Texas". due to the lack of red light camera.

Click to expand...

How would a camera prevent a scofflaw from running a redlight?

Perhaps the same way a "sovereign" border prevents criminals from climbing the fence or ignoring the border?

A criminal law professor (who endured the Bataan Death March) once told me, "You believe we are a nation of laws, you live accordingly."

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Perhaps the same way a "sovereign" border prevents criminals from climbing the fence or ignoring the border?

A criminal law professor (who endured the Bataan Death March) once told me, "You believe we are a nation of laws, you live accordingly."

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Click to expand...

The redligh camera would likely have captured the tag, make and model and perhaps even the perp.
It wouldn't have prevented the accident...but it would aid greatly in the capture of the &*%$&#@ who ran the light and killed Mom and poor little baby Sally.

The redligh camera would likely have captured the tag, make and model and perhaps even the perp.
It wouldn't have prevented the accident...but it would aid greatly in the capture of the &*%$&#@ who ran the light and killed Mom and poor little baby Sally.

Click to expand...

Redlight $camera$ that I reference aren't interested in taking photos of traffic miscreants for the purpose of apprehending said miscrenats.

The $camera$ that our Republic of Texas banned (hallelujah) were interested in CONFISCATING $75 from unsuspecting motorists without "due process".

Nothing I've said has railed against SURVEILLANCE cameras, just redlight $camera$.

Surveillance cameras don't attempt to do anything harmful to law abiding citizens.

Surveillance cameras DO capture information that is often very valuable in police investigations, as with this little angel, Maleah Davis, may she rest in peace.

Thanks to several surveillance cameras, the "perp" will soon be indicted for her murder.

They aren't. For that I thank my freedom loving elected representatives and the Supreme Court of the US for respecting the 2d Amendment and resisting draconian anti-gun laws.

By the way, I'm in favor of traffic and security cameras for the purpose of catching reckless drivers and criminals and I don't mind my taxes paying for them. But I'm with Army Judge on the revenue without due process thing.

If a motorist is cited by a law enforcement officer, she has the right to "due process".
...
The law enforcement officer has to appear and testify under oath as to why the motorist was cited.

Click to expand...

In NYC red light camera violations result in a Notice of Liability being issued - which is like a parking ticket (Notice of Violation). It's on the car not the driver because there is no way to tell who was driving.

Parking Notices of Violation are served all the time and yes, vehicle owners can request a hearing but the issuer is never present. The NoV, like the NoL, is adjudicated by the Administrative Law judge with only testimony/evidence from the respondent.

In NYC red light camera violations result in a Notice of Liability being issued - which is like a parking ticket (Notice of Violation). It's on the car not the driver because there is no way to tell who was driving.

Parking Notices of Violation are served all the time and yes, vehicle owners can request a hearing but the issuer is never present. The NoV, like the NoL, is adjudicated by the Administrative Law judge with only testimony/evidence from the respondent.

Click to expand...

Before the redlight $CAM was outlawed in Texas, the $CAMERA cited the vehicle owner for the moving violation, even If the vehicle was driven by a relative, friend, or even car thief.

In Texas, spouses own property acquired during the marriage equally.
Again, not paying one of these SCAM citations by an inanimate object resulted in one's drivers license being suspended, registration renewal or drivers license renewal being denied. One could even have the INNOCENT automobile arrested, hauled off to a motor vehicle jail, and held for a very hefty ransom.

Thank goodness, our claim was deliberated and caused the state to right this evil scam by some of our larger cities run by a certain political mob.

I was among a group of about 250 people who organized and fought this denial of sue process fro the last 10 odd years.

We're now working on requiring the greedy "gubmints" to refund the money scammed from innocent citizens.

In New York City we have something possibly worse. Mayor Bill de Blasio calls it a "vision zero" policy to prevent fatalities from speeding, reducing the already slow 30 MPH on major roadways (including major boulevards) to a glacial 25 MPH. It cost millions of dollars to create and install new signs. All they needed to do was enforce the speed limit on side roads. But the intent appears to create speed traps to generate speeding tickets... Hence many of us call it the "zero vision" policy.

Forum posts are not legal advice, are for educational purposes only & are not substitutes for proper consultation with legal counsel.

The motorist can cross examine the officer, she can't cross examine an inanimate object, the camera.

That fact alone deprives the motorist of "due process".

Click to expand...

There is a due process problem with a lot photo traffic enforcement laws, but it's not because there was a camera capturing the offense. If a person is seen on video shooting another person, that video is likely going to be admissible evidence against the alleged shooter in his/her murder trial even though that camera cannot be cross examined either. There is no requirement, either in the Constitution or by statute, that requires testimony of a witness who observed the crime in order for the defendant to be convicted of it.

Similarly, there is no reason why a photo or video of person running a red light or speeding cannot be admissible against the alleged driver who committed the offense.

The problem with a lot of these photo enforcement laws is not that a camera was involved. That's a red herring. Instead, it is that states and localities, in their zeal for easy money, provided at best a process that was truncated and wholly inadequate to provide the motorist a meaningful forum for challenging the ticket. They didn't allow for examining the persons at the company who runs the photo enforcement system to challenge how they made their determinations of the violations, question them on how the systems work, etc. If they allowed that it would undercut the profit out of the system for the state and local governments. They shouldn't care so much if the real purpose was safety rather than raising revenue. But because it is in many cases about the money, they don't provide sufficient due process to keep things cheap and the money rolling in.

Kudos to Texas for prohibiting its cities and counties from engaging in that sort of money grab.

About TheLaw.com

Providing legal help, information, legal forms and advice to the general public. A legal resource for attorneys, business professionals and the average person to find self help with the law. Ask a question, get quick answers.

Legal Disclaimer: The content appearing on our website is for general information purposes only. When you submit a question or make a comment on our site or in our law forum, you clearly imply that you are interested in receiving answers, opinions and responses from other people. The people providing legal help and who respond are volunteers who may not be lawyers, legal professionals or have any legal training or experience. The law is also subject to change from time to time and legal statutes and regulations vary between states. It is possible that the law may not apply to you and may have changed from the time a post was made. All information available on our site is available on an "AS-IS" basis. It is not a substitute for professional legal assistance. Before making any decision or accepting any legal advice, you should have a proper legal consultation with a licensed attorney with whom you have an attorney-client privilege. For purposes of New York and New Jersey State ethics rules, please take notice that this website and its case reviews may constitute attorney advertising.